Proposed Levy for Motorhomers visiting the Western Isles...

[veletron]

The following from Cameron McNeish (A freelance journalist and Scotland's main hill walking / outdoors advocate oh, and a campervan owner!)

 

"I've responded to Alastair Allan MSP's suggestion to the Transport Minister that campervans and motorhomes should have to pay a levy to travel to the Western Isles. My response will appear in one of the campervan magazines shortly but for now let me say that I'm deeply concerned about the growing trend of demonising campervan and motorhome owners.

We seem to be getting much of the blame for the overcrowding on Skye and now Dr Allan is suggesting that since there is little or no infrastructure in the Western Isles motorhomers should have to pay for it, through an extra levy.

Seems to me the biggest concern from islanders is that motorhomes take up too much space on the ferries and that occasionally they can't get booked on to the ferry they want.

I can understand that concern and there are ways around it but why isn't Dr Allan including large coaches and cars and caravans in his proposed levy? Large coaches and caravans need infrastucture too but Dr Allan has chosen to single out campervans and motorhomes.

I welcome the debate and sincerely believe it's time the Scottish Government and VisitScotland had some joined up thinking and produce a strategy to deal with a problem that many areas of the UK would love to have - too many tourists."

 

Lots and lots of negative comments from locals on the FB thread that we 'don't spend anything, and consume all the parking spots, and leave a mess, and clog up the roads'. Mostly wrong I know, but if this is the perception then its up to us motorhomers to fix it! Its the fact that caravanners, tenters, coach tour parties are not being included - just us motorhomers that really grates.

 

Nigel

[stevec176]

Think it's known as 'tip of the iceberg', starts with MHs and then add others to the levy. We just have to try and make them realise that they are better off with us than without us.

[Adiebt]

I don’t wish to appear glib but anywhere that imposes a levy on motorhomes is a place I simply wont visit . Now that is either job done on their part or their loss.

[John52]

The UK system of devolving power to local authorities makes it a Nimby's Charter. Run for the benefit of those who vote in Local Elections. Visitors don't have a vote in Local Elections so are treated as a cash cow to be milked as much as possible.

[John52]

Adiebt - 2017-09-22 12:40 PM

 

I don’t wish to appear glib but anywhere that imposes a levy on motorhomes is a place I simply wont visit . Now that is either job done on their part or their loss.

 

What about the Scilly Isles where Prince Charles imposes a levy (landing fee) on all visitors?

[veletron]

http://www.alasdairallan.scot/news/276-allan-writes-to-government-over-motorhome-levy

 

 

[malc d]

John52 - 2017-09-22 1:24 PM

 

Adiebt - 2017-09-22 12:40 PM

 

I don’t wish to appear glib but anywhere that imposes a levy on motorhomes is a place I simply wont visit . Now that is either job done on their part or their loss.

 

What about the Scilly Isles where Prince Charles imposes a levy (landing fee) on all visitors?

 

 

What about it ?

 

If it applies to ALL visitors I see no problem.

 

No discrimination there.

 

:-|

[gdf]

veletron - 2017-09-22 2:24 PM

 

http://www.alasdairallan.scot/news/276-allan-writes-to-government-over-motorhome-levy

 

 

If you follow this link you can send him a message asking for him to justify his statements BUT please remember to be polite :-D

[crocs]

gdf - 2017-09-22 3:33 PM

veletron - 2017-09-22 2:24 PMhttp://www.alasdairallan.scot/news/276-allan-writes-to-government-over-motorhome-levy

If you follow this link you can send him a message asking for him to justify his statements BUT please remember to be polite :-D

Good idea. I've just sent him the following message:

I notice that you are advocating a Motorhome Levy to help finance improved infrastructure on the Islands. One could, of course, say that the marketing of the various Tourist Boards has been successful in attracting large numbers of visitors but, either they didn't believe that they would be successful, or they failed abysmally to plan properly for the influx. Either way, it seems inequitable to target one specific group of visitors for an additional charge.

I have no objection to a Tourist Tax in principle but, if levied, it really ought to apply to all tourists and there are various ways of applying such a charge. Local businesses may then complain that a charge might deter some visitors and, in that case, perhaps they may wish to make an additional contribution through their Business Rates.

One potential way round a Tourist Tax on islands is to tax ferry fares and, in Skye's case, the bridge crossing.

One of the issues here is your government's Road Equivalent Tariff (RET) which subsidises ferry fares to the cost of travelling the equivalent distance by road. That helps the cost of travel for islanders but is also available to everyone else. If that was one of the Government's objectives, ie to increase tourist numbers, RET has been successful but it then seems odd to ask tourists to pay for infrastucture that ought to have been planned for. 

So, perhaps only residents should benefit from RET? Or, it could be that the RET could be available to all residents of Scotland as the subsidies needed for its implementation are paid for by all taxpayers resident in Scotland.

So, instead of a Tourist Tax, the RET could be removed for all non-residents of islands and/or Scotland and the proceeds used to pay for the much needed improvements. But, in any event, we should not target only one category of tourist.

[malc d]

As a short term measure, until their planning departments catch up, there MAY be a case for a levy on motorhomes if it improves facilities that ONLY motorhomers can benefit from - such as waste disposal points.

 

If however they plan to use the new income to provide new toilet blocks for the general public - that is not acceptable.

 

:-|

[gdf]

malc d - 2017-09-22 5:34 PM

 

As a short term measure, until their planning departments catch up, there MAY be a case for a levy on motorhomes if it improves facilities that ONLY motorhomers can benefit from - such as waste disposal points.

 

If however they plan to use the new income to provide new toilet blocks for the general public - that is not acceptable.

 

:-|

 

Surely caravans would use waste disposal and modern coaches have toilets which have to be emptied and could therefore use the facilities - how do you ensure that only those who pay the levy get the benefits?

[gdf]

crocs - 2017-09-22 4:26 PMSo, perhaps only residents should benefit from RET? Or, it could be that the RET could be available to all residents of Scotland as the subsidies needed for its implementation are paid for by all taxpayers resident in Scotland.

So, instead of a Tourist Tax, the RET could be removed for all non-residents of islands and/or Scotland and the proceeds used to pay for the much needed improvements. But, in any event, we should not target only one category of tourist.

Not wanting to start an argument here :-D but doesn't Scotland get money from Westminster and doesn't the Barnet? Formula more than an equal share?

[crocs]

gdf - 2017-09-22 5:50 PM

crocs - 2017-09-22 4:26 PMSo, perhaps only residents should benefit from RET? Or, it could be that the RET could be available to all residents of Scotland as the subsidies needed for its implementation are paid for by all taxpayers resident in Scotland.

So, instead of a Tourist Tax, the RET could be removed for all non-residents of islands and/or Scotland and the proceeds used to pay for the much needed improvements. But, in any event, we should not target only one category of tourist.

Not wanting to start an argument here :-D but doesn't Scotland get money from Westminster and doesn't the Barnet? Formula more than an equal share?

No, Scotland raises its funds in a variety of ways, including direct grant via the Barnet Formula, Local Government Taxes, Scottish Income Tax etc. RET is an example of different decisions that are taken to spend those funds according to the Scottish Government's differing priorities and, accordingly, is subsidised by taxpayers resident in Scotland. And I'll refrain from entering a discussion about whether the Barnet Formula is fair or not because to do that you need to take into account the relative tax shares also.

But the issue here is not about who subsidises what, it's about whether or not it's right to target one group with an extra tax.

[malc d]

gdf - 2017-09-22 5:47 PM

 

malc d - 2017-09-22 5:34 PM

 

As a short term measure, until their planning departments catch up, there MAY be a case for a levy on motorhomes if it improves facilities that ONLY motorhomers can benefit from - such as waste disposal points.

 

If however they plan to use the new income to provide new toilet blocks for the general public - that is not acceptable.

 

:-|

 

Surely caravans would use waste disposal and modern coaches have toilets which have to be emptied and could therefore use the facilities - how do you ensure that only those who pay the levy get the benefits?

 

 

Precisely.

 

A very good question for the Scottish Tourist Office.

 

:-|

[colin]

Well the tourist board don't agree with him.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/857659/scotland-island-tourists-tax-motorhome-snp-msp-Alasdair-Allan